I strongly suggest u to enrol in logic 101. This rule is about altercations on court not about officiating. If you cant distinguish yellow from green, then I advise you to see an eye doctor.
Are you demented? I'm not even talking about the damn rule... I'm talking about instilling harsher penalties to curtail cheap shots, scuffles, and potential brawls that could then potentially lead to players coming off the bench, which leads to over-analysis/examing every technical detail on which players left the bench, etc. Increased penalties for any controversy whether it be a cheap shot, punch, or scuffle will stop the chippiness.
I'm not even saying there's a thug life... its referring to the notion that Stern is hard-line in these incidents because of the perceived "thug life" (hence the quotes). Its been mentioned numerous times already on espn (notably Stu Jackson) as to why the NBA is forced to be hard-line with its rules. Hard fouls are fine in the heat of battle... but cheap shots (and Horry's was a cheap shot) are not.
The C's beat the Lakes when they clotheslined the purples out of 'their game'. It was the true origin of the Bad Boys and years of very ugly basketball. Horry, Bowen, Davis et al get away cheap because two other guys non-aggressively moved to the floor. I guess I am ignorant. I am also ignorant of why not calling fouls in the very late going is 'letting them play'??? It is letting them go midevil on the baller. Just play ball, don't just do 'it'. Signed: Iggy No Rant
LOL. Man, this is so crazy it's funny. No more Heat vs. Knicks Brawl huh? Why didnt the rules prevent the Artest-Detroit utter fiasco which was easily the most embarassing altercation in league history? How bout the Carmelo Anthony brawl? And actually, the Heat-Knicks brawl occurred AFTER the rules were instated, so clearly they did nothing to stop that either. Stern could have avoided all of this by doing the right thing and suspending Bowen after Game 2. He had a plethora of evidence as to the dirty tactics Bowen was using then. Common sense dictated that the brewing tension needed to be simmered and justice delivered by suspending one of the dirtiest players this sport has ever known. He dropped the ball here and now it's blown up in his face as he's pissed off the bulk of his fan base now and created a basis for a completely illegitimate championship and reduced fan interest in a great basketball series for the simple fact that 2 people got off the bench in predictable and expectable human instinctual reaction to a dirty cheapshot against a fellow teammate, never mind that the instigators of the filth this entire series (Bowen and HOrry) have benefitted from their thuggery or that Amare/Diaw NEVER got close to Horry, never talked to Horry, never touched Horry, and never added to the "altercation".
Ok, I see. My apologies. I was about to jump on you something fierce because I am truely sick of people (analysts, fans) placing blame of incidents like this at the feet of a false notion of a thug life culture in the NBA. I hope we see a change in thinking of people as we move forward, but one can only hope.
You completely misread what I take issue with. I take issue with the cheap fouls being attributed to a supposed thug life. So, you can think of yourself however you want, but I wasn't talking about you in whatever terms you thought I was. I agree that Bowen does things that are dirty, intentional or not and Robert Horry's foul was undeniably wrong. I'm not sure where you are disagreeing with me honestly.
Believe me, your interest will 'peak' again when the Lakers become a legitimate contender. They suck know so it's hard for you, that much I can understand.
What's a cheap shot and what's not? what's chippiness? Define them before you go any further. BD's foul on Fisher (BD blindsided him) is cheaper than Horry's and nothing happened. While Bell reacted to Horry's foul and incidents broke out. Horry basically walked away from Nash after the foul. So, it basically depends on your opponents' players' reaction to make u an instigator?
Horry's foul was a cheap shot. Its cheap because it was completely uneccessary, and the fact that he walked away meant he knew what he was doing (it wasn't just their bodies meeting at the perfect wrong angle mid-air... kinda like the Fransisco Elson foul in the 2nd quarter). Horry was also frustrated at his minimal role throughout the 4th quarter of a big loss at home, and the fact that it was Steve Nash (the guy carving them up) may have played a role in the force. I could care less about the reaction afterwards. Davis and J-Rich both had hard fouls in the midst of the game against the Jazz... neither of them were end of game situations where their team was attempting to foul no matter what. Both were excessive... both got punsihed as a flagrant. Yes... some hard fouls can be construed as cheap shots... I just feel that at the end of games, when you know you have to foul, there's no reason to be excessive with it. If you want to make a statement to a guy driving the lane in the midst of the game, that's a nice hard foul, and I have no problem with that (even if its called a flagrant).
When I refer to Heat vs Knicks brawls, I was referring to two teams that got so much bad blood actually I was sitting down for their games expecting to fight everytime. As a matter of fact, after passing this rule for a decade, there's no clear bench brawl. The League is using this rule to stop any scenario of 24 6 feet above 200+ pounders fighting together. BBall is a physical game and brawls are still going to happen, no doubt. But the League will punish them accordingly. What's the problem with Bowen? You can accuse of anything u can think of but u cant prove his intent then u should give him the benefit of doubt. The League cant arbitrary suspend Bowen because of some players whinning. His move that result in a kick to Nash's groin was a legit move to clear space. Nash bounced up to grap Horry's jersey only be restrained by Javie. Bell went after Horry to give Horry a forearm into his body and Horry responded by returning a forearm to Bell's neck. If u dont call this "altercation", I dont know what an "altercation" is.
Sorry dude, u dont understand. As a fan, u can lawyering with me for whatever u think of that sounds reasonable or passionable to you. But for the League to do it, if they dont have a clear cut answer for them, they will prefer not to do it. Hey, u think Horry's foul is a cheap shoot, the Spurs fans think it's a good hard foul. Horry in a interview just said he was trying to take a charge and not moving fast enough and Nash did a good acting job. So, who's right and who's wrong. There's no end of it.
Except the rule already existed prior to the Knicks brawl and it still occurred. The reason there hasn't been one in that long is because bench-clearing brawls are just not commonplace in the NBA. How often did they happen before the rule?
The Knicks brawl in 97 playoff resulted in 5 Knicks got suspended. They led the series 3-2. They lost to the Heat because of suspensions. But Knicks/Heat Brawls were not clear bench brawls. I think this rule passed beacuse of 93 Knicks vs Suns Brawl. If u want any further information, please google.
